Matinee: The Revenant

So, right before sitting down to write this blog post, I decided to get my sandwich on. While that is entirely unrelated to The Revenant, I did end up trying to slice through my finger instead of an avocado, and because in my panic I wrapped my finger in what was left of my rather full box of bandaids, typing this is sort of a monumental challenge. Kind of like the one Leo faced in winning an Oscar. Bam. Not that any of this is really relevant to you as the reader, I just wanted to let you know the struggle that went into this post. I am a martyr for my art.
But enough about me, let's talk about our king of the world and the movie that won him that title.

Honestly I think Vancouver would have rioted if Leo didn't win. We're good at that.

The Revenant (2016) by Alejandro González Iñárritu is based off a book of the same name, written by Michael Punke, which tells the story of frontiersman Hugh Glass and his struggle to survive against impossible odds. Hugh Glass is working as a guide for a fur trapping party with his half native son. While scouting ahead, he is mauled by bad CGI a mama grizzly bear. Doubtful that he will survive, the captain of the party offers an extra reward to whoever stays with him until he dies. Some stuff goes down, and Hugh is left alone, 200 miles from the nearest outpost, with hostile natives in the area. This is a supposedly true story, although it has certainly been embellished since it's inception in the early 1800's (apparently the bear mauled Glass so badly that his ribs were exposed through his back, which some friendly natives fixed for him by sewing a bear hide onto his back for him. Ew).
Now, I am not a huge fan of historical fiction to begin with, never mind that I find the "frontier" part of North American history to be EXTREMELY boring. I know, I know, for shame. My dad was actually a huge history buff for this particular era, which mean getting dragged around to every fort and outpost in British Columbia. You can only see so many NW Co. outposts before they all look the same. And believe me, they all look the same. But I was curious and could put aside my dislike of that era in the name of cinema. Although it probably didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie. What also didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie is that this is definitely an artistic film, in the sense that it is less about entertainment and more about a celebration of the art of cinema itself. That's great, and critics loved the shit out of this movie, so clearly there must be something to it. But, like I said, that doesn't make it entertaining. The cinematography? Gorgeous. The characters? realistic. The story? Morbidly fascinating. But not entertaining. It was a two and a half hour movie, and you felt every minute of it. I never do this, but I actually pulled out my phone to check the time about halfway through (calm down, I was sitting in the very back row). So in the sense of capturing the layman's attention and being able to hold it, not great. Granted, this could be because I already don't like that time period, but damnit, I was willing to try.
Another flaw in the movie, if you could call it that, is that it's very repetitive. We get very used to watching Leo lie around and dying. Again, hugely realistic, and as accurate to the source material as they could be. But it gets boring after a while, you know? Okay, yes, you're dying, but do we have to linger on your face for that long? There was definitely a lingering, dragging feel to the movie, which, given the story, was likely intentional. Shots are held long enough to make people uncomfortable with them. Today's audience is used to a certain amount of speed in a movie, and a complete absence of speed is unsettling. But that's part of the movie. It's raw, it's unflinching, it's brutal, and you live every uncomfortable second of it. They don't shy away from the violence. It struck me as odd, I'm no stranger to violence, and this movie was in no way excessive, but it was unpleasant to watch.

Like honestly, I swear I'm not a pansy

It's clear everything has been carefully considered for this film, and it's authenticity is astounding. Air as an element seemed to be a recurring theme, often being associated with Glass' dead wife and Glass himself. I listened to a cbc radio broadcast of an actor from Montreal complaining about the French Canadian representation in the film, citing that they were portrayed as being unrealistically barbaric, but I honestly didn't see it. Were they uncivilized? Yes. Welcome to the frontier in the 1800's, it was a hard land and only the hard survive. Their representation was no worse than the natives, who also played an antagonistic role but, again, weren't "evil". The Revenant is likely a movie that would benefit from a second watch. Unfortunately, this probably isn't going to happen for me. It was raw, and it was real, and I can appreciate its artistic value as a film, but I can't say that I particularly enjoyed it. Maybe if I was more interested in that time period. Maybe if I was more of a cinophile. But alas, I am not but a humble barista with ordinary tastes. I can appreciate art without enjoying it, but I'm probably not going to watch The Revenant again. Even if it was what finally won Leo his long awaited oscar gold.

I realize this was briefer than previous entries, but please reference sliced finger. Cleaning blood out of my keyboard is not really how I want to spend my afternoon. Next entry will be The Revenant's competitor for best picture, The Martian. Stay tuned, it's going to be out of this world.

~Sassa

(get it?)

(Because it's about Mars.)


(It's hard being this funny.)